In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings, the court refused the prayer to quash the charge sheet as factual disputes could not be adjudicated summary to this stage.
Application to quash proceedings dismissed; applicant directed to surrender within 30 days for bail consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11359 of 2020
Applicant :- Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheeba Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.06.2012 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.637 of 2012 (State Vs. Alam), arising out of Case Crime No.883 of 2012, under Sections-363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station- Tanda, District- Rampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .
The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today
and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of .
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.8.2020 A. Pandey
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge sheet and entire proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether an offence is made out against the applicant at the current stage
Whether directions for bail consideration upon surrender should be issued
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabExplained¶9
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaExplained¶9
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherExplained¶9
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶12
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶12
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Alam
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Parties & counsel
